Advanced Latent Ridgeology (Sirchie HQ) Oct 19-23, 2026
$695.00
SKU
AFP100-261019
- About Us
- Support
- Privacy Policy
- Contact us at +1 919-554-2244 or 1-800-356-7311
Course Overview
This course is designed for new and experienced latent print examiners and forensic science professionals seeking advanced training in friction ridge analysis. The course will provide opportunities for improving latent fingerprint analysis and comparison skills, preparation for the International Association for Identification Certified Latent Print Examination, and training with casework quality latent prints. Students will also learn about and discuss issues including legal standards, bias, and error rates.
Minimum Requirements
Each student must have completed a Basic Latent Fingerprint Comparison Course to be accepted in the Advanced Latent Ridgeology Course.
Curriculum
- The ACE-V Methodology and how it relates to the Scientific Method
- Cognitive Bias in the examination process
- Levels of detail in latent print comparison
- Legal matters, including Daubert Standards, bias, and error rate
- Pattern interpretation, orientation, and search clues
- Distorted and complex latent print analysis
- Casework quality latent fingerprint comparisons
Course Overview
This course is designed for practicing latent print examiners and forensic science professionals seeking advanced training in friction ridge analysis. The course will provide opportunities for improving latent print comparison skills, preparation for the International Association for dentification Certified Latent Print Examination, and training with casework quality latent prints for real-life comparison experience.
Day 1
Block 1: ACE-V Methodology & the Scientific Method
Lecture Topics
Overview of ACE-V
• Analysis: Assessing the latent in isolation; quality, quantity of detail, and preliminary pattern determination before any comparison is made
• Comparison: Systematic side-by-side comparison of the latent against the exemplar
• Evaluation: Rendering a conclusion of identification, exclusion, or inconclusive based on the level of agreement or disagreement observed
• Verification: Independent application of the ACE process by a second qualified examiner, with documentation of agreement or disagreement
ACE-V and the Scientific Method
• Connecting each ACE-V phase to scientific method steps; observation, hypothesis formation, testing, and conclusion
• The role of hypothesis testing; framing comparison as testing the hypothesis that two prints share a common source
• Repeatability and reproducibility; why independent verification is essential to scientific egitimacy
Limitations and Criticisms of ACE-V as a scientific framework
• ACE-V as a structured process vs. a validated scientific methodology and what the distinction means in practice
• Lack of standardized decision thresholds and the use of examiner discretion in the Evaluation phase
• Verification and possible confirmation bias
• Calls for proficiency testing, error rate research, and the ongoing debate over quantitative sufficiency thresholds
Cognitive Bias in the Comparison Process
• Confirmation bias; how contextual information about a case can influence comparison decisions
• Anchoring and tunnel vision in the Comparison phase
• Linear sequential unmasking (LSU) as a possible bias mitigation strategy
• Institutional and organizational pressures on examiner objectivity
Class Activity
Structured Debate: “Is ACE-V Truly Scientific?”
Divide class into two groups; assign one the pro-ACE-V position, the other the critical position
Pro-ACE-V
• How does each phase of ACE-V map to a specific step in the scientific method, and what does that structural alignment tell us about its validity as a scientific process?
• ACE-V requires independent verification by a second examiner. How does this requirement reflect the scientific principle of reproducibility, and why does that matter for reliability?
• Decades of casework and proficiency testing have produced a track record for latent print examination. How does that empirical record support the argument that ACE-V functions as a scientific methodology?
• If ACE-V is not scientific, what standard would it need to meet to qualify and is that standard applied consistently to other forensic disciplines?
Critical Position
• ACE-V provides no standardized threshold for how much detail is “sufficient” to support an identification in the Evaluation phase. How does that lack of a defined decision rule undermine its claim to scientific rigor?
• If the verification step is typically conducted with knowledge of the original examiner’s conclusion, what does the research on confirmation bias tell us about whether that step provides genuine independent validation?
• The PCAST Report found that the number of rigorous black-box studies on latent print examination was limited. What does the absence of robust, peer-reviewed error rate data mean for ACE-V’s status as a scientifically validated method?
• What does the literature on examiner variability in conclusions tell us about whether ACE-V meets the standard of providing consistent results regardless of who applies it?
Debrief should emphasize that understanding criticisms makes examiners stronger practitioners and better witnesses
• Is the most accurate answer closer to “ACE-V is scientific”, or “ACE-V is not scientific”? Or something more nuanced. What does that look like in practice?
• How does understanding the strongest criticism make you a more credible and resilient expert witness?
Block 2: Levels of Detail in Latent Print Comparison
Lecture Topics
Level 1 Detail: Ridge Flow and Pattern Type
• General pattern types and ridge flow characteristics
• Using Level 1 to establish orientation and pattern type
• How Level 1 supports or eliminates candidate prints during a database search
• Reliability of Level 1 under adverse deposition conditions. Can the surface or distortion affect how the print looks?
Level 2 Detail: Minutiae
• Ridge endings, bifurcations, dots, short ridges, enclosures, and spurs
• Spatial relationships between minutiae and the basis for individualization decisions in most casework
• Evidentiary weight of Level 2 and why it remains the primary foundation for identifications in court
• Reliability considerations: substrate, deposition pressure, and development method effects on minutiae visibility
• Documenting Level 2 features; charting conventions, markup standards, and annotation options
Level 3 Detail: Pores, Ridge Edges & Incipient Ridges
• Pore structure; morphology, position, and spacing
• Ridge edge characteristics; shapes (smooth, jagged, notched) and their persistence
• Incipient ridges; definition, identification, and limitations
• When Level 3 is appropriate and conditions required for reliable Level 3 analysis (resolution, development quality)
• Court admissibility issues, examiner qualification requirements, and case examples
Holistic Assessment: Weighting the Levels Together
• How examiners integrate Level 1, 2, and 3 findings into a single holistic determination
• The relationship between detail quantity and detail quality in reaching a conclusion
• Substrate and deposition effects on detail availability at each level
Class Activity
Annotation Exercise: Identifying and Labeling All Three Detail Levels
• Students receive printed high-quality latent and rolled exemplar worksheets and lower quality latent prints
• Working individually, students annotate Level 1, 2, and 3 features
• Pairs compare annotations and reconcile disagreements
• Pairs verbally describe the analysis of the lower quality latent prints
• Instructor-led debrief highlights common annotation differences and reinforces the hierarchy of detail
Block 3: Daubert & Post-Brandon Mayfield Issues
Lecture Topics
The Daubert Standards Applied to Friction Ridge Evidence
• Testing: Has the theory or technique been tested? What constitutes a valid test for friction ridge analysis?
• Error rate: What is the known or potential rate of error? How examiners should discuss and document error
• Peer review and publication: The role of the forensic science literature in establishing scientific legitimacy
• General acceptance: How the forensic science community’s standards relate to the Daubert inquiry
• Pre-Mayfield application: How courts historically accepted fingerprint evidence under Daubert with minimal scrutiny
The Brandon Mayfield Case
• Case facts: the 2004 Madrid train bombing, the FBI’s erroneous identification, and the subsequent exoneration
• Technical failure points; how a partial print was misidentified despite multiple verification steps
• The role of contextual bias; how non-fingerprint evidence may have influenced the comparison decision
• The OIG report findings and their implications for examiner training, documentation, and oversight
• Professional and public aftermath; how Mayfield changed the discourse around fingerprint nfallibility
The 2009 NAS Report and PCAST
• NAS Report; key findings on the lack of foundational validity research and calls for standardization
• PCAST Report (2016); distinction between foundational validity and validity as applied; black-box studies
• Examiner responses to PCAST; professional organization rebuttals and ongoing methodological debates
• The current state of error rate research; what the empirical literature shows and where gaps remain
Testifying Under Daubert; What Examiners Can and Cannot Claim
• The evolution of source attribution language
• Appropriate and inappropriate claims of uniqueness, infallibility, and zero error rate
• Documentation practices that support admissibility; written analysis notes, chart preparation, and verification records
• Preparing for cross-examination on foundational validity, error rates, and case- specific methodology
Class Activity
The instructor presents a fictional scenario: a high-profile latent print identification has just been challenged in the media following a defense expert’s public statement that the methodology lacks scientific validity. Students, working in small groups, must prepare a 2–3 minute statement defending the scientific basis of their examination to a non-expert audience of journalists. Groups then deliver their statements, and the class evaluates whether the explanation was accurate, accessible, and defensible.
Day 2: Pattern Interpretation, Orientation, Palm Prints & Complex Latent Prints
Block 1: Pattern Interpretation & Its Role in Comparison
Lecture Topics
Review of Fingerprint Pattern Types
• Loops: radial vs. ulnar; classification criteria
• Whorls: plain, central pocket, double loop, accidental
• Arches: plain vs. tented
• Classification challenges: when a print sits at a classification boundary
Pattern Type as Level 1 Context for Comparison
• How pattern type establishes the analytical framework and directs attention to the relevant comparison area
• Using pattern type to narrow the search field before Level 2 analysis begins
• Core and delta identification, their role in anchoring orientation, and establishing the comparison reference points
• Pattern-based exclusions: cases where pattern type alone provides sufficient basis for elimination and when it might not
Common Pattern Misclassifications and Their Impact
• The consequences of misclassification for database search strategy and for comparison conclusions
• When to render a pattern determination as ambiguous and how to document that determination
Class Activity
Pattern Classification Exercise
• Students individually classify a mixed set of latent and rolled exemplars, including intentionally ambiguous examples
• Results are compared; discrepancies are discussed as a group to identify classification criteria that were applied differently
• Instructor presents the “ground truth” classification for each exemplar with detailed rationale
• Discussion: what are the practical implications (if any) when examiners in the same lab classify a pattern differently?
Block 2: Latent Print Orientation & Search Clues
Lecture Topics
Establishing Orientation in a Latent Print
• Using core and delta landmarks to establish distal-proximal and medial-lateral axes in the latent
• Ridge flow analysis as the primary orientation tool when core/delta are absent or unclear
• Deposition angle as an orientation factor; inferring finger position from ridge curvature and pressure gradient
• Substrate context as an orientation aid; using the geometry of the surface and likely contact scenario
• Identifying reliable anchoring features in a partial print; which features provide the most stable reference points
• Strategies for working with poorly oriented, fragmentary, or otherwise challenging latents
Distortion as an Orientation Factor
• How uneven pressure spreads and compresses ridges and how that can make orientation determination unreliable
• The relationship between deposition angle and pressure and apparent ridge spacing
Class Activity
Orientation Challenge Exercise
• Students receive a set of latent prints without any contextual information about the substrate or deposition scenario
• Each student must independently determine probable orientation and the specific features and reasoning used
• Instructor-facilitated discussion: the substrate context and intended orientation are disclosed, and discrepancies are discussed
• Focus discussion: What happened when orientation was ambiguous? What features were most and least reliable?
Block 3: Palm Print Orientation & Search Clues
Lecture Topics
Anatomy of the Palm: Zones and Their Distinctive Characteristics
• Thenar area: the elevated area at the base of the thumb; pattern types, ridge flow, and common deposition scenarios
• Hypothenar area: the outer edge of the palm; ridge flow patterns and distinctive features
• Interdigital area: the area below the four fingers; high-density minutiae, unique ridge patterns, and comparison challenges
• Proximal and distal palm: how flexion creases, ridge flow direction, and features that aid in zone identification
Orientation Strategies for Latent Palm Prints
• Using flexion creases as primary orientation landmarks; thenar crease, proximal transverse crease, distal transverse crease
• Ridge flow direction as a secondary orientation anchor when creases are absent from the latent
• Common deposition scenarios and the palm areas most likely to be recovered: pushing, gripping, writing, and steadying surfaces
• The challenge of partial latent palm prints; determining which zone is represented when landmarks are absent
Palm Print Search Clues for Database and Manual Comparison
• AFIS/ABIS palm search strategies: area selection, orientation entry, and search parameters
• Manual comparison search clues; using distinctive ridge flow, crease patterns, and zone-specific features as anchors
• Distinguishing latent palm prints from toe and plantar (foot) impressions in ambiguous cases
Class Activity
Palm Print Area Mapping Exercise
• Students receive a set of latent palm prints of varying quality and completeness
• Each student must identify the probable zone of origin
• Pairs compare zone determinations and resolve discrepancies before a group reveal
• Instructor discussion: how does zone uncertainty affect the comparison strategy and the confidence of the conclusion?
Block 4: Distorted & Complex Latent Print Analysis
Lecture Topics
Sources and Types of Distortion
• Pressure distortion
• Movement distortion: smearing, slippage, etc.
• Double-touch impressions; identifying deposits from the same finger or multiple fingers
• Substrate texture distortion; how rough, curved, or porous surfaces degrade and fragment ridge detail
• Development method artifacts; over-development, chemical reactions, and background interference
Analytical Strategies for Distorted Prints
• Deconstructing a complex latent; identifying and isolating usable areas from degraded or distorted regions
• Accounting for distortion during comparison
• Recognizing and separating superimposed impressions; techniques for isolating individual deposits within an overlapping latent
• The relationship between distortion assessment during Analysis and the confidence level assigned in Evaluation
Documentation Standards for Complex Latent Prints
• Written analysis notes; capturing distortion type, usable area identification, and comparison rationale
• Annotation and markup conventions for complex prints
• Threshold for inconclusive determination; establishing when distortion renders comparison unreliable
• The examiner’s obligation to document not just the conclusion but the analytical pathway that led to it
Class Activity
Complex Print Case File Analysis
• Small groups receive case file packets containing latent prints with varying distortion types
• Each group produces an analysis; distortion type identified, usable areas delineated, comparison strategy described, and a supported conclusion
• Groups present their analysis to the class; the class evaluates the reasoning, not just the conclusion
• Instructor debrief
Instructor Note: Days 3–5
Days 3 through 5 consist of structured practical comparison exercises using casework-quality latent print materials. Separate materials, including case packets, comparison worksheets, and instructor answer keys, are provided under separate cover. Students should have completed all
Your Instructor: CJ Cavazos
CJ graduated from Purdue University with a degree in Sociology and minors in Psychology and Forensic Science. He then went on to Syracuse University to obtain his Master’s Degree in Forensic Science. CJ began his forensic career in 2014 with the North Carolina State Crime Laboratory (NCSCL) in the Latent Evidence Section as a Forensic Scientist I. At the NCSCL, CJ was trained in latent print examination and comparison and footwear examination and comparison. He became an IAI Certified Latent Print Examiner in 2017. In 2021, CJ took the position of Lead Fingerprint Specialist at the United States Secret Service in Washington DC. He provided technical guidance for the Latent Print Section and was the Training Coordinator for new examiners. In 2024, CJ joined the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) as a Fingerprint Specialist. In addition to his professional roles, CJ taught an Introduction to the Science of Fingerprints course at NC State University and has presented lectures at the International Association for Identification and the Chesapeake Bay Division of the IAI. He is a past member of the North Carolina Division of the IAI and a current member of the parent body IAI.
Click on the thumbnail to download our 2022 Education & Training Guide.